Vituperative Bloggery
If I know you (and I probably actually do know you), I know you like to drink. Prepare to get shitfaced: it's the Republican National Convention Drinking Game! I hope you can keep track of the rules:
Take one drink every time 9/11 is mentioned during a speech or by a pundit.
I guarantee, you are going to get hammered!!!
This just in: Alan Keyes is Insane.
Here's an idea of how effective the protesters will be at the RNC this week: they'll be arrested and their manner of free speech confiscated. Orwell was 20 years off.
"What did I say? Don't look behind the fucking curtain. I looked right in your fucking face, and said, 'Don't look at the fucking man behind the fucking curtain.' And what did you do? WHAT DID YOU DO, DOROTHY?"
I was just in the Jamba Juice in the Merchandise Mart, and instead of asking for customers' names, they were asking for fictional characters to announce the completion of one's smoothie.
Here’s something to consider when Republican mouthpieces say that children raised under the tutelage of a heterosexual couple fair better than those raised under the tutelage of a gay couple.
There is no law to prevent a parent from bringing the following into the home of their impressionable and naïve toddler: a 9mm handgun loaded with a 14 shot clip, 40 pounds of bacon, a 4 year subscription to Hustler, a case of Yukon Jack, a carton of unfiltered Camel cigarettes, and a Christmas stocking stuffed with coal. Should there be?
Here’s something to consider when Republican mouthpieces say that John Kerry betrayed veterans when he spoke of atrocities committed in Vietnam in 1971.
Abu Fucking Ghraib, Bitch.
Kos on how we on the left should consider Cheney's statement on gay marriage:
This seems to be a gift to opponents of state-based initiatives to ban gay marriage or civil unions, as well as at risk Dems in conservative districts. Asked about the issue, the answer is simple: "I agree with Vice President Cheney that freedem means freedom from[sic] everyone."
Kos, I couldn't disagree with you more.
Cheney wasn't espousing freedom one bit. He still said that the issue of gay marriage is "a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled." Gay marriage is NOT a state issue. If a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts, what happens if one of them gets a job in Kentucky and the couple has to move? Are they no longer married? The issue of gay marriage requires federal involvement.
This issue, however, goes way beyond marriage. As I (think I) have said before on this blog, the homosexual community has made the wrong play shooting for marriage. The Judeo-Christian heart that pumps much of the bigoted blood through America's veins couldn't even begin to embrace gay marriage right now. The issue is not whether gays can get married; it's whether they can get adequate hospital care, fair treatment in business establishments, and equal opportunity employment. Even here in Illinois, there is no equal rights for gays except in Chicago. I could be denied a job in downstate Illinois if the boss thought I was gay, and I'd have no legal recourse. These are issues that even the most homophobic can understand -- being denied a job based solely on the way you lead your life, not because of your qualifications.
Is that a state matter, Mr. Cheney? Hell no. If slavery was a state matter, we'd probably still have slavery in some states. So why is giving equal rights to gays a state matter? Any American has a right to hate gays, but no one has a right to legislate that hate.
What is needed right now is not gay marriage sanctions. What is needed is a find-and-replace in the Civil Rights Act changing every occurrence of "race, color, religion, or national origin" to "race, color, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation." Then and only then, when gays are legally equal to everyone, can we have a discussion about marriage on legal terms alone and not religious or faux-sociological terms.
Besides, I'm still of the opinion that we should abolish marriage altogether and make any financial coupling a civil union. If you choose to call it a marriage, that's your business.
I know Dick has to juggle his loyalty to the administration and its conservative base with his love for his openly gay daughter, and I appreciate his openness about it. Calling gay marriage a state issue, unfortunately, is a cop out, and it's unfair to the millions of people that needed the federal government to intervene in order to receive equal treatment.
I get what Kos is saying -- throw what Cheney said back in his face. I, however, think we should throw it a bit harder than Kos is insinuating.
I recently sauntered over the Borders near my office and picked up a fresh copy of Maureen Dowd's Bushworld. At the time, I was unaware that Bushworld is merely a compilation of articles from her New York Times column. Suspicious that it may have been just that, I scoured the dust jacket for clues. There were none. I was taken for a sucker; which I obviously am. I read the book anyway, and although I enjoyed it I wouldn't recommend it to serious readers (too pricey, geriatric typeface, overly droll, and short on revelations). However, I do suggest that if you find yourself browsing a bookshop, pick up a copy and read the introduction – it's brilliant.
Japan is planning to deport Bobby Fischer. In 1992, Bobby Fischer flew to Yugoslavia, competed in a chess match, and won some money. Therefore, he did business in Yugoslavia, on whom the US had imposed sanctions. Therefore, Bobby Fischer is in trouble with the US Government.
I just can't get enough Low Culture:
"Najaf" means "dry river". Of course, there's no way to maneuver "swift boats" in a so-called "dry river". What, then, do swift boats have to do with the important developments taking place in Najaf right this very moment? Oh, wait, wait, wait..."swift boats" have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, the U.S. economy, healthcare, the American class system, or other issues pertaining to a race for the presidency of the United States. Hell, swift boats don't even have anything to do with gay marriage or constitutional amendments.It all finally makes sense! God bless you, American media! God bless us, everyone! This is Tiny Tim, signing off from Darfur.
I wonder what'll be bigger news next week: the unfuckingbelievable chaos in Iraq or the feint whiff of cordite emanating Schwarzenegger as he slams his fist on the podium in the Big Apple and declares Bush the Messiah. It's a toss-up.
These ads are excellent.
TECHNOLOGY NEWS ROUND-UP. I'll give you the bad news first:
I just read the patent article. What is even more Ironic about the situation is that Nintendo has done virtually nothing to support its on-line market. Every major criticism of Nintendo for the past year + was that they need to get into the on-line gaming if they wanted to be serious and save the game cube from a fate like the dreamcast.
I means it sucks cuz Xbox Live is one of the few things that Microsoft has gotten right. I'll be majorly pissed if they shut it down.
NEWS FLASH: "When [Simon Amstell] asked [Britney Spears] what was the last thing she'd had in her mouth, she replied 'a dildo'."
Reader Mail: "Because Arlo hasn't added a comments section yet:
I like what you said about the Bushies' purported moral clarity. I have something to contribute to this subject. Really. Check it out:
I pretty much completely agree. I further think that the neocons' exclusive commitment to dispassionate objectivity is a result of a condition of a priori certainty and can only further yield results that necessarily validate that (or any other, frankly) style of thinking employed. In other words, if you wake up with in the morning in possession of a deep, unthinking understanding that you are a good, right-thinking person, then you will hear very little criticism throughout your day and the disasters that your behavior produces are likely to be somebody else's fault. Everything, in fact, that happens during the day will be taken as positive supporting evidence. Obstacles will be things that are either ignorant of their obligation to get out of the way or represent an immoral resistance to inevitable good. The rigidity of the worst conservative mind as at its base an involuntary Platonic fixation on the phantasm of absolute forms. It is a mind misled by the popular notion of a natural moral instinct and enslaved by the passions of fundamental truths. A slave who loves his master['s] idea is unlikely to understand or undertake the risks and uncertain rewards of seeking escape. And, as Rush Limbaugh's remarks on the Abu Ghraib photos demonstrate, a slave who loves his master cannot be relied upon to recognize his master's brutality.
Conversely, the progressives' current tendency toward pragmatic utilitarianism may be a philosophical cathedral but boy oh boy is it defenseless against fanaticism. In no time at all they find themselves dislodged and marching in the streets and helpless, helpless, helpless to influence, in even the smallest sense, the course of events, the deployment of power.
I also think there is another sort of analysis that could be of service here. Because we have no way of knowing if in reality the neocons are as certain of our collective destiny as they appear to be, we are left to consider their public proclamations - that is, their proclamations to a public that is legally empowered to remove them from office, but a public they regard with general disdain. And when you sit down cross-legged on the floor and listen to this administration start to speak, what you get is a kind of religious, patriotic My Pet Goat. A child's story of World the bad, America the good, World the scary, America the brave, How will this World War end? America the Mission Accomplished. It is a variation of themes we've heard since childhood and as a society we cannot be relied upon to accurately measure just how far the wool has been pulled over our eyes. What currently makes the political discourse in this country so painful, however, is that in telling these stories Bush and companions are absolutely volcanic in employing the most sacred expressions of our republic: open new frontiers to democracy, free the slaves, freedom of expression, sacrifice of life in pursuit of liberty, the provision of righteous justice, equality of opportunity, etc. etc. etc. It is a story for a domestic audience only, for the rest of the World isn't fooled at all. They see exactly what has happened. We, on the other hand, are turned one against the other; We've all heard this story from other mouths in other generations, but this time some believe the last four years a sacrilegious horror, and some believe that the president is accurately giving voice to the causes of the time (I fall into the former group by virtue of my conviction that liars are successful because they tell you precisely that thing that you most want to hear. Even God is rarely so accommodating.) That's what I love about Bush's assertion that "everybody" thought Iraq possessed WMDs is not so much that it is a deliberate lie, or that it is deliberately inaccurate, or that it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts as we all know them, but that it is typical of the public face this administration presents and that it is what this administration does best: It's storytelling. And in a way, if you think about it, it's preemptive storytelling. The nerve!"
Wait a sec. I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists:
Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr accepted a peace plan to end the fighting in Najaf that would disarm his militia and remove them from their hideout in a holy shrine.
However, he still wanted to negotiate how the deal would be implemented, an aide to the cleric said.
If the agreement is fulfilled - and al-Sadr has made contradictory statements in the past - it would resolve a crisis that has angered many of Iraq's majority Shi'ites and threatened to undermine the fledgling interim government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, which is already fighting a persistent Sunni insurgency.
Al-Sadr's loyalists and a combined US-Iraqi force have been fighting for nearly two weeks throughout the holy city, battling in Najaf's vast graveyard and in the streets of its Old City. A wall surrounding the Imam Ali Shrine, where the militants have holed up, was reportedly chipped in the fighting, and any damage to the gold-domed mosque itself would infuriate the world's 120 million Shi'ite Muslims.
I'm reminded of a statement I once heard about the influence of The Velvet Underground: they're first album may have only sold 1,000 copies originally, but everyone that purchased that album started a band.
After sitting – hour after dark hour - through the moody conniving of Tom Cruise in Collateral (i.e. "rough trade in a good suit"), I cannot escape the conclusion that America's love affair with banality is far from over. While everyone's work on the film is predictably exact and commendable – the real star of the movie is Michael Mann. The dialogue is sparse and finely calibrated to reveal character; leaving the heavy lifting to Mann, who pounds on his well-worn themes of loneliness, isolation, and slick corporate ennui. Tom Cruise does a smashing job conveying professionalism and indifference. The utter absence of any other facet of human emotion, however, will probably get him an award of some sort. Modern audiences love emptiness and simplicity in their movie actors: to fully understand a character is to own them. To leave a theatre feeling that a character exceeds your ability to pigeonhole him/her only confirms your own emotional paucity. And so we are given simple people about whom brilliant directors work their sultry magic. Let the actors lure you into the theater with their celebrity, you won't have to suffer through actual performances. We promise to deliver the goods in other ways. In this respect, Mann has given collateral to both us and his actors: "a security pledged against the performance of an obligation".
That's exactly what I told my Dad:
"If ever there were a bleeding-heart liberal, it was Jesus Christ," Moore said at Congregation Agudas Achim synagogue. "I think the carpenter from Galilee was the original Democrat."
Via Fark.
Militant. Peaceful. Anarchic. Nonviolent. Political protests under the reign of George have failed entirely. Why? The answer lies in the most important flip-flop of all. For decades, rock-ribbed Republican stalwarts have bemoaned the shortcomings of relativism. The notion that subjective qualifiers play a vital role in formulating moral and/or aesthetic judgments is openly mocked: there is right and wrong, good and bad, black and white. The individual is fallible, with a protean soul, but Truth is permanent: aligning oneself with Truth (often in defiant rebellion against one's nature or conscience) is a sacred duty. It may seem as though this position is uncompromised by the flippant dismissal of dissenters throughout the reign of George: they [protestors] are driven by irrational and subjective angst, we [neocons] are driven by rational and objective Truth. However, that is not the preferred argument. Not by a long shot. This is: freedom to speak your mind is what makes America great. That's right. The greatness of America lies in the wholesale glorification of relativism, subjectivity and orgies of emotionalism. The majesty of George, however, is so great that he need not actually listen to or attempt to refute such flapdoodle. Under a global cloak of rhetoric which strokes and applauds the "freedom" to express oneself, George and his cronies have parlayed themselves into a position where the Truth being spoken (and written) in opposition to their policies is rhetorically robbed of it's power. For example, we are repeatedly told that "everyone" thought that Saddam had WMDs. That's pure horseshit. Millions of protesters were not wrong – the truth was simply ignored. Now, whenever George talks about how great it is that people can speak their minds, I can only think of bottles of kerosene and dirty rags.
I recently said that Bush's plan to realign troops was a good idea, but wondered why the Hell we were reducing troops in South Korea. Ezra at Pandagon thinks it's a good idea at a bad time:
...world affairs are in too great an upheaval to begin shuffling our military forces. With North Korea still a threat and the possibility of Islamic violence high, we don't want to deal with the psychic consequences of changing our deployments now. In world affairs, interpretation is important, and various allied and opposing countries may take this wrong, further overturning any semblance of predictability in the international realm.
...
That's why having a President you trust is so crucial; in the hands of bumbler, even the best policy is dangerous. But under the control of a steady leader, overdue changes like this one can finally be implemented.
Which is a valid point. When the world hates our President, is it a good time for our President to change how our military is spread across the globe? Perhaps not.
Furthermore, here's an observation so obvious that I'm hitting myself:
Despite the Pentagon's denials, it seems deliberate that the two largest withdrawals have been proposed for countries that the Bush administration has had serious differences with in recent years, over Iraq in the German case, and over negotiating strategy with North Korea in the case of Seoul. Both countries have been working hard to patch up relations - South Korea is one of the few American allies with troops in Iraq - but the Pentagon does not seem interested in reciprocating.
Realigning our troops is still a good idea. It'll reduce costs, reduce troop relocations, and better address the enemies of today. However, do we want the Bush administration initiating such a plan when the world is already questioning our motives, when leaders will assume we're punishing Germany whether or not it's true, and when South Korea not only needs our help but has earned it?
I've been swayed. It is a good idea, but not now, and not if it is implemented by Bush.
UPDATE: Fixed a bad link.
Oh, and John Kerry asked the same question I did:
"Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea -- a country that really has nuclear weapons?'
And I really don't feel like I'm taking this out of context. This is Donald Rumsfeld's opinion on the creation of a "Secretary of Intelligence":
"In pursuit of strengthening our nation's intelligence capabilities, I would offer one cautionary note," Mr. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It's important that we move with all deliberate speed. We need to remember that we are considering these important matters, however, while we are waging a war. If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great."
I'm going to take that quote and make two very small changes. Tell me if it still sounds like Donald Rumsfeld:
"In pursuit of a war in Iraq, I would offer one cautionary note. It's important that we move with all deliberate speed. We need to remember that we are considering these important matters, however, while we are waging a war on terror. If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great."
See, suggesting that you move slowly and deliberately means you don't agree with it.
Why would Donald Rumsfeld disagree with the creation of such a position, though, if it meant better coordination of intelligence agencies, perhaps noting patterns quicker? Because it makes Donald Rumsfeld look bad to take away some of his duties. It implies a dereliction. Donald Rumsfeld's career comes before the safety of the American people. That's patriotism, dammit.
He went on to say, "I doubt that we should think of intelligence reform being completed at a single stroke," which was pretty much parrotted by GOP stalwart John Warner of Virginia.
Behold! GOP MAGIC! Of fucking course you can't fix intelligence in one fell swoop. You put someone in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence agencies, which will begin the process of fixing intelligence. But categorize it as a "single stroke," misdirecting the public from the gritty details, and voila! A Secretary of Intelligence is a bad idea.
Evil geniuses.
UPDATE: Even better, the quote above only needs one change:
"In pursuit of a war in Iraq, I would offer one cautionary note. It's important that we move with all deliberate speed. We need to remember that we are considering these important matters, however, while we are waging a war*. If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great."
*We were already fighting in Afghanistan.
UPDATE: Kelly adds: "Why is Rumsfeld against restructuring the intelligence community?
Follow The Money."
I saw Alien Vs. Predator yesterday, and as much as I enjoyed the mythology that was created to explain why the Predators were versus the Aliens and Lance Henricksen's homage to his original role as an android, the action kind of sucked, the script totally sucked, the violence was too quickly edited (ruining potential edge-of-your-seat suspense), and the ending special effects reaked of Jurassic Park.
Normally, I'd cull a few choice quotes and make some inane comment…but not today. Today I'm simply going to request that you take a few minutes and read The Brains Thing. Please.
The Bush administration has a good idea:
President Bush on Monday announced plans to shift as many as 70,000 U.S. troops who are now stationed in Western Europe and Asia in one of the largest realignments since the end of the Cold War.
Some of the troops would be moved to posts in Eastern Europe while others would be based in the United States, available for deployment overseas, White House officials said. It remained unclear if the overall number of U.S. troops stationed overseas would drop.
The action follows years of debate over how to position U.S. troops to respond to modern-day threats such as terrorism and continued unrest in the Middle East.
So it's not an exit strategy, but it's a strategy to put troops in better, more strategic places. It's a new century. We're fighting new enemies. We need new positions. I can agree with that.
There was one bit, however, that piqued my interest:
The United States has also said it plans to reduce troop numbers in South Korea, where they have held static positions for 50 years.
Uh...
So what are we doing? Are we leaving the area to fend for themselves against Kim Jong Il? Are we bowing down to the requests of North Korea? If we're realigning troops to have easier access to where the action is, isn't North Korea a potential action spot? Or are we, ahem, surrendering, placating North Korea? I'm not trying to fabricate reasons for this, but considering how little North Korea is discussed these days, this is probably a good question to ask.
So, Mr. President, why are we reducing the number of troops in South Korea, an area threatened by a country you placed in the Axis of Evil and has theatened new-cue-lar attacks?
I know he reads this blog, so I'll be sure to post his answer.
Moment of silence for Julia Child, proof that you can eat a stick of butter a day and still live to your 90s.
Congratulations Muqtada al-Sadr! You've accomplished a lot. Both the U.S. military and its civilian leadership are tongue-tied when it comes to you and your band of rascally upstarts. You're on the news here in America virtually every night. The authorities call you "fiery" and "zealous" – they point out that you "constitute a military threat". You caught the attention of the world when you said:
The Mehdi Army and I will keep resisting. I will stay in holy Najaf and will never leave…I will stay here until my last drop of blood.
But strangely, and this is the real accomplishment, the American public is still wildly ignorant of what you're fighting for. The Bush White House, quintessentially expert at demonizing its enemies, has not labeled you "evil". Even as your boys attack our boys, there has been no successful campaign to depict you as a vicious and bloodthirsty monster. Instead, you've been called "youthful", a "lightweight", an "upstart", an "opportunist" and a "novice" (not unlike our current President back in his pre-9/11 salad days). You've also gained enough political leverage to rock the mighty American military juggernaut back on its heels and – of all things - negotiate! How did you do it!? Was it just that Rummy didn't have enough "boots on the ground", or was it something else? Was the Coalition of the Willing too cowardly to destroy your entire town for fear of it being a Pyrrhic victory, or was it something else? The only thing I can come up with that may account for your seemingly successfully campaign against the last great superpower is that you're fighting for your own country in your own country with your own countrymen. Nevertheless, you're causing American soldiers a real headache. And we can't allow that.
Bro: Wassap! Looks like you got weather. No worries. We've already put together a package to deliver a gazillion dollars in Florida pork. It'll be wrapped in an airtight FEMA bill. Use is wisely muchacho (wink, wink). See you in November! Yours, W.
PS: If the storms happen to create a particularly picturesque pile of rubble, cordon the area and get a bullhorn ready.
My father is coming into town this weekend. To prevent the nightmares that occurred during his last visit to Chicago, I'm going to get these out of my system now:
And the one that would piss him off the most...
Yeah, he loves that one.
Well, knock me over with a pink feather.
They took the bait. John Kerry, as we all know, has said that he would fight a more "sensitive" war on terror. Dick Cheney's got some fightin' words for Kerry:
America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. President Lincoln and Gen. Grant didn't wage sensitive wars. Nor did President Roosevelt or Gens. Eisenhower and MacArthur.
Lynne Cheney has piped in as well:
I can't imagine that al Qaeda will be impressed by sensitivity. ... This is kind of left-wing foolishness that certainly isn't appropriate for someone who would seek to be commander in chief. I just kind of shook my head when I heard that.
Let's take a moment to imagine John Kerry's response to these comments:
"Hey Dick, c'mere a second. I'd like a word. Check this out [Kerry brutally slams his fist into Cheney's face, fracturing his jawbone and rendering him unconscious]. Sorry Dick, it wasn't personal. I was just being 'sensitive' to the needs and desires of the American people as well as the larger global community of which we are a part. [Kerry turns to Lynne Cheney] Hey sugar, are you 'impressed by sensitivity' now? No? Well, perhaps you'll have a better understanding of what I mean by 'sensitive' after I kick you in the box and use you as a snowshoe. [Ms. Cheney squeals in fear and runs away, her arms slapping the air helplessly]".
UPDATE: Bush on Sensitivity. [Thanks Atrios]
On the hullabaloo being whipped up by the Bush campaign about Kerry's explanation of the Iraq vote: Kerry voted to authorize the use of force. That's all. It was a vote that Bush insisted at the time wasn’t necessary anyway because, as he saw it, he already had the power to do whatever the fuck he wanted with whomever the fuck he wanted. Contrary to what some people believe, without a credible (i.e. authorized) threat of force, diplomacy is handicapped. In voting to authorize the use of force, Kerry was providing the President with a necessary precondition to the successful execution of diplomatic efforts to avoid the application of force. If you're sailing into a port well known for its dangerous shoals and hidden reefs and your captain asks for a map, do you give him a map? Of course you do. You give him a map even though you've been sailing with him for years and it is obvious that he fully intends on moving with full sail straight into the port without regard for the dangers that lurk beneath the surface of the sea. You give him a map even though he will probably rip the hull open on a coral reef. You give him a map knowing full well that when you're both paddling for shore on a sheared masthead, he'll be blaming you for having voted to authorize his use of the fucking map.
Like you really care, but I decided to stick with Blogger. And I've added a new feature today.
I'm going to try not say too much about Alan Keyes in the future, but I would like to issue an open apology to the citizens of this great country for the recent behavior of the Illinois Republican Party. While I am politically opposed to the GOP, I nevertheless have a great deal of respect for some of the fundamental principals of republicanism. Furthermore, it is in the interests of us all to engage in a continual and vociferous debate about the multitude of ideas we, as individuals, hold dear – whatever they may be. Therefore, when the intellectual infrastructure of a major political party in an important state abnegates it's responsibility to contribute to the debate, it is a matter that concerns us all. The regrettable expulsion of Jack Ryan from the Senate race can be likened to an Olympic runner spraining his ankle the day before his scheduled event. To extend the metaphor, instead of substituting a healthy team member to replace him…the Illinois GOP has flown in an incontinent quadriplegic with epilepsy. The other athletes gather on the track in tense anticipation. They have trained tirelessly - for years - for this grand opportunity to prove their measure against the best the world has to offer. From the darkness, a wheelchair is hastily pushed out onto the track by a man in a sweat-stained suit. Halting at the starting line, he dumps the wheelchair on its side and it deposits its contents: the undiapered and incoherent Alan Keyes. Unable to stand (for he has no limbs), Keyes groans loudly and emits an erumpent blast of anal wind. The crowd grows silent. A shadow of shame blankets the arena – the sun is shrouded in blackness by the wing of a thing too big to see. I'm going to try not say too much about Alan Keyes in the future.
Oh my god.
It was a fun weekend in Chicago. Apparently, The Dave Matthews Band (although they deny it), dumped shit on a group of tourists. Apparently, the waste was jettisoned during a bridge crossing and landed on a tour boat. Now, speaking as a fish who lives in the Chicago River, it's important for me to stress that we got lucky this time…we may not be so lucky in the future. If we're not diligent, this kind of "accident" will most assuredly become "policy". And as fish, we can't tolerate that. We'll die. Literally. I'm not fooling around on this. We rely on a large expanse of water, and skyward gaping tourists won't always be there to shield us from the gathering shitstorm.
As if we need more evidence of this claim, but Liberal media, my ass. Wired, with my emphasis:
In August, Robert Greenwald will release an updated version of his award-winning film, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. Greenwald has added a clip of President George W. Bush's February interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, NBC's Sunday morning talk show. In the clip, the president defends his decision to go to war - astonishingly unconvincingly.
Greenwald asked NBC for permission to run the one-minute clip - offering to pay for the right, as he had done for every other clip that appears in the film. NBC said no. The network explained to his agent that the clip is "not very flattering to the president." Greenwald included it anyway.
Later in the article, NBC says by denying use of the interview, it's being neutral. Neutral how? By stating that they view the clip as "not very flattering" is not very neutral. And denying use of the clip for that reason is far from neutral.
Read the entire article, too, because the purpose of the article is to demonstrate yet another example of where copyright can be used to infringe on the rights of Americans, namely the words of our leaders. If the president gives a speech at the White House, it's public domain. If he gives it on Meet the Press, it's the property of NBC. Want to buffer yourself from grassroots criticism, just give all your speeches on a news network. Combine that possibility with the increasing concentration of the media, and you've got the makings of Pravda built bottom-up instead of top-down.
Speaking of copyright issues, in case you haven't heard, Orrin Hatch wants to make my iPod illegal:
To show what sort of inane lawsuits would be possible under the INDUCE Act, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) drafted a mock complaint, in which Apple, Toshiba, and CNET are sued: Apple for manufacturing the iPod, Toshiba for supplying the iPod's hard drive, and CNET for my iPod review, in which I explain how to use the iPod to transfer music between two computers. The fake complaint accuses these three companies of inducing copyright infringement by conspiring to put an iPod in your hands so that you might, of your own volition, fill it with unauthorized copyrighted music.
Sounds scary, right? I mean, I own two computers and an iPod, so I'm thrice tempted to copy a CD or a movie or download child porn (which is the issue the act is wrapped up in to make it harder for congressmen up for reelection to vote against it).
It's a crock and has little chance of passage. However, it wouldn't hurt to let your congressman know that it's a crock. The EFF makes it easy.
Nice to know the investigation hasn't been quashed:
A federal judge on Monday ordered ``Meet the Press'' host Tim Russert and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer.
What more do they need to say? Yes, such-and-such a person called me and offered me that information. Like we need any more ammunition against the Bush administration, but outing a covert CIA agent -- highly illegal and a threat to homeland security -- is easy to explain to voters. It may be just enough to push the threat level to red.
This is what Bush said yesterday:
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
How true. This unguarded moment of honesty occurred while he was signing a bill allocating $417 billion in defense spending (i.e. no-bid contracts to Halliburton and the like). Hold on a minute...where did I put that thing? Uh… Oh yeah. Here it is. Check this out. But where was I? Oh yes. $417 Billion. We're talking fighter jets made of titanium and moon dust, infrared space torpedoes, nuclear Uzis. Expect some awesome stuff in 2005! Meanwhile, you can also expect resentment abroad to continue its "four years of uninterrupted growth". Sure, we may have some wicked new planes, but don't expect "flyover rights" anytime soon – those days are gone. And you can just forget about maintaining our current deployment levels on foreign soil – all those "friendly" countries will be asking us to leave shortly. But hey, this all about making America safer, right?
George Will has some questions for Kerry. Let's pretend for a minute that Kerry decided to answer them. Hmm…
You invoke the Commandment ["Honor thy father and thy mother"] to explain why you "will not cut" Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62?
Does what "include" raising the retirement age? Where's your question? I'm guessing that you're asking me if I'd raise the retirement age, albeit in your own special way. Here is your answer. I've been pretty up front about where I stand on this. Looks like you wasted a question. Oops – watch it there, champ. It looks like your safety helmet is slipping over your eyes. If you can't see your spittle cup you won't be able to catch those long driblets of drool. There you go…who's a big boy!? Who's a big boy!? (ahem) Next question.
Regarding military action, your platform says "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption." If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of "green light from abroad"?
No. You see, unilateralism isn't "wrong". However, a "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption" is another matter altogether. See? It's not that hard to understand if you think about it. Perhaps if you pulled your cranium out of your colon you could actually think.
Are you glad that in 1981 Israel set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program with a unilateral pre-emptive attack on the reactor near Baghdad?
Yes I am. I'm also glad about the various sorties and bombing missions that we conducted in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan in the years (and decades) prior to September 11. I'm not opposed to unilateral or pre-emptive action, you galactic dollop of mental diarrhea. I'm only opposed to it when it's wrong and as an ideological doctrine. Try to understand that. Try. I know it's hard…but try.
Your platform says: "A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk." But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power?
Well, if "diplomatic hand-wringing" isn't working, perhaps we should take the little chimpanzee that's doing it by the scruff of his little chimp-neck and extradite him to Texas. Of course military action is "feasible", but it would also be "fucking dumb". What would I do? Hold on, you're not going to like this…I would talk to them. Unbelievable, isn't it? Shocking. You're probably asking yourself, "How can he possibly talk to the Muslimazoids!?" Idiot.
Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, "We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country." Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force — unilaterally, if necessary — to defend Taiwan?
No. See, I'm not completely insane.
The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because "we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed." Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the East African embassies mean we were at war but were uncomprehending? Have not scores of thousands of young Americans been deployed, ashore and on ships, since 1942?
No, dipshit, it didn't mean that at all. We weren't "at war" and if there was anyone that didn't comprehend that it was you. I knew it. The President knew it. The entire fucking country knew it. As for the my use of the word "deployed", well…you got me, you spineless ferret! I guess I should've said "deployed on a war footing" or some such linguistic qualifier. I just figured that since Bush said the "free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror" I could pretty much say whatever the fuck I want too, regardless of how retarded it may be. Sorry.
You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan?
You bet I would, you sad little prick, if such a deployment were necessary. Only I wouldn't do it alone because I wouldn't have to. I would communicate with NATO and the U.N. and we would intervene in a prudent and measured way that wouldn't compromise our sovereignty (or Sudanese sovereignty) or mismanage the effort to such an extent that the U.S. must maintain an untenable commitment as permanent peace-keepers. However, to commit to a position on whether to use force as a candidate would be profoundly irresponsible. So I won't do it. That you want me to only serves to indicate the depth and breadth of your stupidity.
You say, "I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam." Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000?
It sure did start before Nixon took office, you phenomenal jerk. I should know, because I shipped out to Vietnam two months before Nixon took office. My antiwar activities were born from my experiences in Vietnam, and it was Nixon that was waging the war when I came home – and so it was Nixon's war that I fought, and fought against. But you can't be expected to understand such matters because you're a little crybaby pussy who wears bowties and has a hairlip. Check out the record and shut the fuck up.
The easily distressed abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does it? What are its defining attributes? Does, say, an elderly person with dementia have it, and hence a right to life?
Yes, an elderly person with dementia does have a right to life you goddamn sadist. Life does begin at conception. Here's a fun fact for you: most successfully fertilized embryos die long before a woman (god willing) becomes pregnant - are they entitled to the same legal protections as the ones that make it out alive? Not practical. Abortion is a touchy issue, to be sure, but here is one thing that we can all agree on: once someone is born, they're a person. Jackass.
You oppose, on federalism grounds, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for the Republic's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference?
What's the difference between getting married and having an abortion? Jesus. I think someone else should explain that to you. I'm running for President right now.
When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, you said he had "crossed the line" because "it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians." Have you felt that way even when the Church has instructed politicians take liberal positions regarding economic justice, race and other matters?
Yes. I have felt that way.
Your platform says, "The price of gas is at an all-time high." But it isn't as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim?
I justify it by noting, correctly, that the price is high. It's higher than it has ever been. You know what? I'm beginning to think that you're just a right-wing attack dog who isn't really interested in anything I say, but are asking questions that you don't really want answered. Instead, you want to make snarky little jabs (retarded though they may be). Well, bite me. You're a hack and a fraud. This interview is over.
A race between Barack Obama and Alan Keyes would be a landslide for Obama. Okay, Barack Obama versus just about anybody would be landslide for Obama.
I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it.
Alan Keyes for Senate in Illinois? Bring it on, bitch.
You can try, but you won't find a more credible voice in the music business than The Boss. It was inevitable that his participation in Moveon.org's Vote for Change Tour would generate a significant amount of publicity. From his upcoming interview with Ted Koppel:
I stayed a step away from partisan politics because I felt it was always important to have an independent voice. I wanted my fans to feel like they could trust that ….You build up credibility, and you build it up for a reason, you know, over a long period of time, and hopefully we've built up that credibility with our audience. And I have an audience that's Democrats, Republicans and everything else, you know. And I think there comes a time when you feel, all right, I've built this up, and it's time to spend some of this.
And further…
... I think you have a bond with your audience, and it's very particular because you've put your fingerprints on their imagination. It's really intimate. We've done it for a long time ….I think for a percentage of my audience, this may feel like a severance of that bond, you know. But basically I feel like the relationship is more complicated than that, you know, that we're one, but we're not the same, you know ….
Basically, I would hope that I'm going to clarify some of the things that I stand for, and that clarification enriches my relationship with all parts of my life.
Hopefully the message will get out to all the professional political pundits and their ilk that this election is – finally - a serious matter, and one that may not conform to their cherished "indicators" and polls. With sober and eloquent voices like Springsteen joining the fray, those who propagate absurd lies and false accusations will be forced to redouble their efforts: it takes a lot of shit to bury a giant.
PerformInk just posted a decent article about Defiant's closing. Chicago Tribune critic Chris Jones has some kind words:
"In the early to mid 90's, they were doing the most dangerous work in town—they were doing things nobody was willing to do," said Jones, on the phone recently from his desk at the Tribune. "They often evoked a sense of raw sexuality on the stage, coupled with an anti-authority, ‘fuck you' type of demeanor that they put together like no other company. There was a sense of anger to them, a real level of hostility that I found interesting on stage."
Jones sees no theatre companies currently presenting that kind of raw energy, including ones in which former Defiant members are active.
When I was doing double-duty as marketing and media relations guy for Defiant, a local critic who had written many bad reviews of Defiant shows was placing us at the top of a weekly list of shows opening. While working out the details with him, he told me that Defiant was always worth writing about. I'm not sure what better statement could be said about an arts organization.
Seeing as how many of the folks who read this site are involved in or at least occasionally see Chicago off-loop theatre, I'm compiling testimonials. So if you'd like to say goodbye to Defiant, e-mail me. I'll design something pretty to present as a gift to the company members. Thanks.
(Full disclosure: I'm the guy that updates PerformInk's website, and my girlfriend is their ad manager.)
YOU DO CARE!
This Daily Howler post brings to mind this Wonkette post. Contrary to my previously held beliefs, I now salivate with expectation when I contemplate the expiration of the assault weapons ban in September. If an informed electorate is too much to ask for, perhaps a more powerful weapon will be necessary to oust King George.
A little follow-up to Kelly's disturbing post just below this one. Psychologists agree that indifference to the suffering of animals as a child leads to indifference to the suffering of fellow human beings in adults. Here's an example.
Kelly just emailed me:
Liar, liar, pants on fire, hanging on a telephone wire:
http://www.defianttheatre.org/company/guthrie/2004_07_25_archive.shtml#109119341873972345
Ooooh…that such a BURN ON YOU!
So no, I didn't say anything about Kerry's speech. Sorry.
Favorite line from the speech: "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family." Ooooh...that such a BURN ON BUSH!
Looks like I'll soon have to find a new home for this here blog.
"Clockwork is essentially a story about youthful passion and energy, about the often painful maze of error and discovery through which these lead, and how we ultimately emerge from that labyrinth as different people," says Christopher Johnson... "It is a story about the journey from adolescence to adulthood told through the most violent, sexual and politically charged metaphor conceivable.... I can't think of a more fitting piece of theatre to sum up the eleven year odyssey we are concluding, bot personally and artistically."
So cheers to Defiant Theatre: for influencing Chicago off-loop theater for years to come, for sticking to your principles as vehemently as you could, and for shaping my life as you have -- thank you.
From an article posted on CNN.com regarding studies on how fear shapes voters' views:
…volunteers were aged from 18 into their 50s and described themselves as ranging from liberal to deeply conservative. No matter what a person's political conviction, thinking about death made them tend to favor Bush, [Sheldon] Solomon [a social psychologist who specializes in terrorism] said. Otherwise, they preferred Kerry."I think this should concern anybody," Solomon said. "If I was speaking lightly, I would say that people in their, quote, right minds, unquote, don't care much for President Bush and his policies in Iraq."
He wants voters to be aware of psychological pressures and how they are used.
"If people are aware that thinking about death makes them act differently, then they don't act differently."
Is this surprising? Perhaps people favor Bush when they think about death less because they think he can delay their own than because Bush and Death have been fairly close friends over the years. Remember this famous little sound-bite from the 2000 debates:
"…guess what's going to happen to them?" Bush said, smiling. "They'll be put to death".
Or what about those unprecedented 152 executions while governor of Texas? And who could forget that remarkable State of the Union address of January 28, 2003:
All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.
If you're sober, that probably sounded like a implicit admission that the President of the United States endorsed and engaged the wholesale execution of people without even the faintest pretext of due process or the rule of law. It doesn't sound like that to me, however, because I'm drunk – drunk on Patriot Porn!
Check out this thorough timeline of what the Bush administration knew and when they knew it. What a pack of fucking liars. (Via Atrios.) Granted, this is all information that we already knew, pretty much, but it's presented in a succinct manner that can easily be forwarded to your conservative counterparts.
The Chicago Tribune reported last week that, in response to the difficulties of finding a replacement for Jack Ryan in the Illinois race for the U.S. Senate, Illinois Republican Party Chairman Judy Baar Topinka said this:
The state, as well as the press and the public, deserve a strong candidate, so we can debate issues, so that it's not just a free ride of warm fuzzies [about Barack Obama].
This begs the obvious question: what the fuck is wrong with warm fuzzies!? Politics can be nasty, and the GOP had its chance. Instead of supporting Jack Ryan when he was being maligned by irrelevant and salacious accusations (as they ought to have done), party officials decided to elbow him aside to dawdle and fuss while Obama seized the day. All they can offer now is an ad hoc concoction of slanders and attacks from a puppet candidate who's born to lose. Sorry Judy, you haggard old bitch, but I'll opt for warm fuzzies instead. I obviously need them.
A little bird just flew by and dropped this article in my lap, which details how Canada is being "Halliburtoned" by Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting).
Accenture is currently billing the province nearly $1 million (U.S.) to tweak the mainframe-based system so it can calculate a 3% across-the-board increase for welfare recipients.
Understandably, it has been dubbed "an obviously bad contract" and … Ontario officials [have] been "thoroughly bilked by Accenture." That Accenture has a long and sordid history is not news. United States tax dollars continue to be funneled into the offshore accounts of this thoroughly disreputable organization. What's surprising – and very sad indeed – is that Canada has not been paying attention to what Accenture has been up to for so long. One would think that if a kindly descendant of hardy French stock woke up every morning to the sight of his banjo-pickin' neighbor being brutally raped in the anus by an obese Caribbean pirate, he would refrain from inviting the pirate over for baguettes and jam. Nope. It's just not so. Fortunately, there's still hope for Illinois.
Not as flawlessly done as the Subservient Chicken, but fun enough: Subservient President. (Via BoingBoing.)
It won't go away, this argument that cannot be logically refuted. In case you didn't see Joe Biden on Meet the Press yesterday, here's a small taste of what he had to say:
John Kerry's going to end up as president of the United States, God willing, where he is going to have to tell the French and the Germans and the rest, "Get over it. You don't have George Bush as an excuse anymore. Move. Get moving."And the fact of the matter is I see--from my perspective, Tim, trying to stand back from it is hard. I mean, I'm obviously partisan on this. But if you stand back from it, does anybody think there's any possibility in a second four years George Bush is going to be able to rally the world to help us carry the burdens on anything? I mean, I'm not being facetious. I see no reasonable prospect of that. John Kerry will. Now, maybe it won't all work out the way it's supposed to. It's the only hope we have, and we cannot carry this burden alone, and I don't mean just Iraq. You have to have international cooperation to deal with the big problems we're going to face, and they relate from terror all the way to HIV and infectious diseases to ethnic cleansing.
And the irony is, what frustrates me, is this president, God love him, has made us weaker than before. I was the guy, as you remember, that pushed the last president before him, Clinton, to get into Bosnia and Kosovo. I beat up and about the head everyone who would listen to get involved. Can you imagine after the way George Bush has handled Iraq, another Milosevic, Us being able to gain the support, Democrat or Republican president, to use force legitimately? I think he's--and we've got to restore that. We've got to restore our credibility. And I don't see how George Bush can do that.
However, no matter how obvious (and important) this argument may be to some of us, there are those who care not for international relations. There are folks among us who rely on quick messages and the sound-bite politics of naked self-interest. For these people I offer a censored lyric from one of American's most cherished musicals, Annie:
In ev'ry pot he said 'a chicken'
But Herbert Hoover he forgot
Not only don't we have the chicken
We ain't got the pot!
We randomly examine the pedestrian and obvious qualities of politics, nature and culture. Often inspired by the relentless cruelty of our fellow man and/or the indefatigable hilarity of our nation and its leaders, we curiously segue into such diverse topics as the ephemeral disposition of modern art, the competition for supremacy over resources and technology, and dwarf regurgitation. It is with scattershot clusters of words that we seek to reinvigorate the dialogue that will shape our future and protect our world from those who selfishly attempt to control it. If you believe that horseshit, you're even dumber than we is.
PLEASE NOTE: This site is intended for adults with either the mental capacity for reason or the complete lack thereof. We sometimes link to sites that are not safe for work. We sometimes don't warn you. We do this to celebrate the anarchy of hypertext. Please turn on your web browser's status bar so you can see where a link will take you before you click it. If you still don't know from the status bar, then you should consider that they aren't paying you to sit around. Right?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
